Hi Junio
On 16/04/2024 11:26, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Rubén Justo <rjusto@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
When the user introduces an invalid option, we respond with the whole
help text.
The verb "introduces" in the first sentence looked weird to me.
add -p: require two steps to get help after mistyping an option
During a "git add -p" session, if the user chooses an option
that is not offered, the help text for the entire available
choices is given.
I find this suggestion clearer as well.
[...]
On the other hand, if you are truly lost and do not know what each
of the listed choices mean, you'd type '?' anyway because that is
one of the offered choices. So the only change needed here is to
make sure that '?' is the only thing that gives the help message,
and all other unrecognised option 'x' are made to say "we do not
know 'x'".
That flow of thought makes sort-of sense, if the choices that are
offered are too numerous (say, around a dozen or more), but with the
current command set, I am not sure if this change is an improvement
(note: I did not say "I do not think that"---I simply am not sure).
The complete list of help is 15 lines long (we don't always print
everything but if you're in the middle of staging several hunks from the
same file we do)
y - stage this hunk
n - do not stage this hunk
q - quit; do not stage this hunk or any of the remaining ones
a - stage this hunk and all later hunks in the file
d - do not stage this hunk or any of the later hunks in the file
j - leave this hunk undecided, see next undecided hunk
J - leave this hunk undecided, see next hunk
k - leave this hunk undecided, see previous undecided hunk
K - leave this hunk undecided, see previous hunk
g - select a hunk to go to
/ - search for a hunk matching the given regex
s - split the current hunk into smaller hunks
e - manually edit the current hunk
p - print the current hunk
? - print help
I find it long enough to be annoying as it means there is a significant
distance between the prompt and the hunk text.
If we implemented the UI this way 20 years ago in the first version,
perhaps we would have had happily been using it since, but given
that the way we implemented the UI 20 years ago has been used
happily by our users without much complaint, either way must be just
fine.
Is it worth changing it at this point? Does it improve the end-user
experience in any noticeable way? I do not think I can answer these
two questions with confident "yes".
Personally I think it would be an improvement but I suspect it is a
matter of opinion.
Best Wishes
Phillip
Signed-off-by: Rubén Justo <rjusto@xxxxxxxxx>
---
add-patch.c | 5 ++++-
t/t3701-add-interactive.sh | 10 ++++++++++
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/add-patch.c b/add-patch.c
index a06dd18985..c77902fec5 100644
--- a/add-patch.c
+++ b/add-patch.c
@@ -1667,7 +1667,7 @@ static int patch_update_file(struct add_p_state *s,
}
} else if (s->answer.buf[0] == 'p') {
rendered_hunk_index = -1;
- } else {
+ } else if (s->answer.buf[0] == '?') {
const char *p = _(help_patch_remainder), *eol = p;
color_fprintf(stdout, s->s.help_color, "%s",
@@ -1691,6 +1691,9 @@ static int patch_update_file(struct add_p_state *s,
color_fprintf_ln(stdout, s->s.help_color,
"%.*s", (int)(eol - p), p);
}
+ } else {
+ err(s, _("Unknown option '%s' (use '?' for help)"),
+ s->answer.buf);
}
}
diff --git a/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh b/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh
index bc55255b0a..b38fd5388a 100755
--- a/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh
+++ b/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh
@@ -61,6 +61,16 @@ test_expect_success 'setup (initial)' '
echo more >>file &&
echo lines >>file
'
+
+test_expect_success 'invalid option' '
+ cat >expect <<-EOF &&
+ Unknown option ${SQ}W${SQ} (use ${SQ}?${SQ} for help)
+ EOF
+ test_write_lines W |
+ git -c core.filemode=true add -p 2>actual &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+'
+
test_expect_success 'status works (initial)' '
git add -i </dev/null >output &&
grep "+1/-0 *+2/-0 file" output
